"The dopers have ruined training theory"

Renato Canova wrote:

There are many studies about effect of EPO : one of them was Yesterday on this website.

I want to explain that ALL THESE STUDIES HAVE NOTHING OF SCIENTIFIC when we look at top athletes.

The reality is that there are many studies on the effect of doping for normal people and/or athletes of medium level, but no studies about the effect on top athletes.

Sadly, this is not true! Professor Francesco Conconi conducted extensive scientific research on the effects of EPO administration in elite athletes from a wide range of sports. At the time, these data were published under the false pretense that these were "20 subjects practising sports at an amateur level". A subsequent investigation by Italian Authorities proved that the data was actually collected from 20 elite professional athletes, including one former Tour de France champion. The results of these studies reported SIGNIFICANT increases in red blood cell production, mean corpuscular volume and haematocrit level; all physiologically relevant in terms of oxygen delivery to the musculature.

Despite his ethical shortcomings, Francesco Conconi is still widely considered to be one of the great minds in sports science. His work on aerobic/anaerobic testing contributed greatly to the scientific literature. The Conconi test which he developed is still a commonly used aerobic test. He was in many ways ahead of his time. Conconi was administering blood transfusions to elite athletes as far back as 1981. Back then it was not illegal. So why would one of the greatest minds in sports medicine practice blood doping on elite level athletes if the effects were "equivical" as Roberto suggests...

Roberto argues that we should not speak about doping without scientific evidence of how it effects elite athletes. Well, Conconi collected that data over 25 years ago and clearly he understood the significant performance benefits. Otherwise why would he have administered it so extensively to elite athletes in Europe?

References:

Casoni, I., et al. (1993). Hematological indices of erythropoietin administration in athletes. Int J Sports Med 14(6): 307-311.

Conconi G,Casoni I, Manfredini F et al (1994)Detection of

erythropoietin administration in sports.In: Blood Samples

in Doping Control. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Drugs in Sports (P Hemmersbach, Ki Birkeland, ed), Norway, August 29-31, 1993. 133-139

Thank you Neil, exactly what I was referring to. Do you have a link to a .pdf or a freely available version of the articles?

In the study of Conconi, that really was commissioned by the Italian Olympic Committee (remember at that time then self-transfusion was legal), there were also top athletes : Antibo, Damilano, Emma Scaunich, Magnani (current head coach of Italy), Scartezzini.

For some of them (Scartezzini) the practice worked very well. For some other, absolutely not.

Maurizio Damilano used this system only one time, before European Championships 1982. He won OG in Moscow without any intervention on his blood, but in 1982 he faced the WORST competition of his life. Consequently, never used again the self-transfusion, and won WCh 1987 (and improved the WR of 30 km in 1992) without any "aid".

Antibo ran 27'39" in 1984 and was 4th in OG. He used the self-transfusion (as the twins Antonio and Piero Selvaggio) till when it was legal (1985). After this, he only used training in altitude (Sestriere was his Kingdom), and improved dramatically. The Antino 1990, totally clean, could run under 27', in a competition like sometimes we can see today.

Emma Scaunich lived in Ferrara. She was one of the main "tests" of Conconi. The reality is that NOTHING changed in her performances before and after the self-transfusion.

On the other side, we had in Italy athletes refusing the protocol of CONI (Olympic Committee), suche as Stefano Mei, Francesco Panetta and Gelindo Bordin. Their results, totally clean, are under the eyes of evrybody.

Conconi used this method with swimmers, too.

In 1984, one of the 3 best swimmers for 200m mix was the Italian Frenceschi. Italian Ol. Committee had big hopes for a medal with him. He was under the program of Conconi, regarding the manipulation of blood. Franceschi not only didn't win any medal, but practically never was able, after the transfusion, to achieve performances near the previous level.

I repat again : it's clear that, taking EPO, there is an increase in the ability to transport oxygen. But for a better performance in endurance (especially in LONG distances) we need to see many other factors, and the main remains the blood viscosity. Athletes increasing of 25% their total blood volume using only training are able to maintain a very low viscosity (this is the real difference from a top champion and a good runner), and at the same time can increase their transport of oxygen because they have more blood.

Another important thing : living and training in a situation of hypoxia can increase the ability to extract oxygen from the atmosphere. This is a kind of improvement we can't achieve with EPO or any other blood manipulation.

At the end of every discussion, I can say I know many WR holder are completely clean, while many athletes of high-medium level use doping, so there is no scientific demonstration that EPO can improve any performance of top level in the best athletes.

Till when some research, speaking about "training", is not generic, but can detail exactly what the training is, every research is BS. I repeat this hundred times : for really understanding the advantages of blood doping, we need to know HOW A RIGHT AND TOUGH TRAINING WORKS. Doctors look at what they know only (to increase blood values), coaches look at the way for improving the performances of the athletes.

At least, JK has reason : the use of doping created wrong ideas about training. With correct methodology (and with doping the methoidology never is correct, because a part of the changes that training can provoke are in charge of doping) athletes can reach results better than using doping. On the other side, with doping can reach top results (but not their best possibilities) in shorter time. Doping is a shortcut, but doesn't allow athletes of endurance to go faster, looking at a full career.

observer coach wrote:

Or like having high school runners do some fast reps following an XC race because Alberto has his athletes do it!?

Which is hardly revolutionary. We routinely did hill repeats right after cross country races in high school. I recall at least once doing 400m repeats after a race. This was in the late 70s/early 80s.

BLAST FROM THE PAST wrote:

Bernard Lagat

- Trains once per day

- Takes one day off per week

- Takes 5 weeks off at the end of every year

- Mileage in the 50s when training for the 1500

- Mileage in the 70s now training for the 5000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/3078642.stm

So what? That is the regimen that allows him to continue competing at almost 40.

Do you not think that as a Kenyan teenager Lagat did his time with two-a-days like everyone else there?

One day off per week is just common sense. Needing and taking that recovery is more of a sign of NOT doping than doping, stupid.

It's very easy to take a month off after the peak season when you don't have obsessive-compulsive disorder (or an SC season). All Kenyans take periods basically completely off of training.

Skarlet Knights wrote:

I don't know why people think that Lagat's training (which is pretty standard stuff for a 1500-5k runner with good speed) is outlandish. Training easy is not a big sign of doping -- training hard is. A la Lance's "hours on the bike".

What makes me suspicious is when guys are somehow able to do extremely tough interval work 4-5 days a week and race at top fitness extremely frequently.

Rupp much?

EPO worked just fine for rashid ramzi until he got busted

he took up the doping mantle from his predecessors el guerrouj and morcelli

who were no doubt also high as a kite on EPO

it worked just fine for lasse viren who won the double double thanks to blood transfusions

and no doubt many of Hermens and Rosas east africans were also doped to the eyeballs

remember there was little or no testing available for EPO for over 10 years

approximate performance gains for EPO doping in middle-distance below:

1500m 2-3 seconds

3000m 5 seconds

5000m 10 seconds

10,000m 20 seconds

the above figures correlate closely with the figures conconi had for blood-doping prior to the widespread use of EPO in the 90s

those performance gains are no longer possible with the athlete biological passport and EPO testing

current performance gain using EPO microdosing for the marathon:

42K 2-3 minutes performance gain

it was not possible for a clean athlete to win anything at elite level 1500m-10,000m from 1994-2006

the only way you could podium was with EPO

10/10 for the first half.

Breaking improvements down by seconds is worthless-- A clean 28 minute guy would go 27:40, and a clean 27 minute guy 26:40? That would mean you get more improvement from EPO the faster you are. You need to look at % improvement, and particularly whether that's a consistent % at increasing baseline fitness.

Where'd you get the 2-3 minutes for microdosing from? Is there a study on that?

But after the WR at 30k Mosop said in an interview he will resume very hard training very soon and then it didn´t take long till he becomed injured permanently. So it was all too much for him to handle.

those time gains are for athletes at the very top level

20 seconds over 10,000m is for clean 27 minute athletes

athletes at lower levels such as 30-31 minute 10k athletes can expect to gain as much as 2-3 minutes

so you cannot go by percentage gain as doping enhancement diminishes at the very top level

this is where i agree with renato

however it is incorrect to state that there is no performance enhancement

Roberto, your original argument was that there is no scientific data on EPO administration in elite athletes. I (and Insider42195) simply wanted to point out that Conconi et al. carried out extensive research on this subject. Most of this data was unpublished (for obvious reasons) but we can clearly see a statistically significant effect in the data that was published.

You are now using anecdotal evidence from certain individual Italian athletes, in order to maintain the argument that the effects of EPO in elite athletes are equivocal. This is not good science!

I hate anecdotal evidence, because it perpetuates bad science. But if we choose to use anecdotal evidence, then there is OVERWHELMING evidence of the effects of EPO usage in elite sport. Too many broken records and gold medals that were subsequently removed due to positive tests. Nonetheless, you mentioned the negative effects of EPO in certain Italian athletes, so i will describe the positive effects of EPO in one of my countrymen (even though it is only anecdotal evidence):

2002: Cathal Lombard was a middle of the pack Irish runner (7th at the 2001 Irish Championships in 5000m. His 10,000m PR was 30.35).

2003: Lombard takes 2 minutes off his 10k PR. He was now running 28.36 and qualifying for World Championships.

2004: Lombard smashed the Irish record and runs 27.40 in the early outdoor season. If i remember correctly, he was the fastest non-African 10,000m runner prior to Athens Olympics when he ran 27.33. After this, he began dodging domestic competitions and moved to Tuscany for unofficial training camps. Eventually the Irish Sports Council caught up with him, for an out-of-competition test. He confessed to extensive EPO use, right there in the middle of test.

Cathal Lombard took over 3 minutes off his 10k time in 2 seasons. He was 28 years old at the time...

But yet again, this is anecdotal evidence! So i would ask Roberto this: is there any scientific evidence that EPO causes a REDUCTION in aerobic performance? If not, then i would argue that the overwhelming body of scientific (and anecdotal) evidence points to the positive effects of EPO use across ALL levels of athlete.

PS- @Insider42195: I think I have that 1993 Int J Sports Med article somewhere but its in paper format. If you'd like a copy, drop me an email and i'll dig it out and scan it over to you.

Funny that Renato Canova comes on this thread, as he knowing encourages athletes to dope. These European coaches/agents are all frauds people, open your eyes. And that EPO study Renato mentioned showed that EPO improves oxygen efficiency dramatically, which Renato of course did not mention.

Thanks Renato....I love having you on here!!! Brilliant!

[quote]Northern Star wrote:

"Here's what I have from Kellogg on the issue. I seem to recall something more direct about how if you see ridiculous training schedules with tons of intensity, that's a red flag for a doping athlete (faster recovery = more able to handle high intensity work)."

Englishman Frank Horwill developed his 5 Pace Training System in the 1970s. Many highly successful British runners used this system in the 1980s. Peter & Sebastian Coe followed this system with minor variations. Peter then wrote several highly influential books on this type of training. The North Africans - Algerians and Moroccans (Auoita, Morcelli, El G etc.) followed this system. Canova's system is based on this with his own modifications.

The program is extremely intense. Here is Horwill's original program, which many Brits, Coe, Auoita, Morcelli, El G, and Canova's East Africans have used modified versions of it.

Day Training Session

Day 1 Aerobic – run half marathon distance fast

Day 2 Aerobic – 3 x 2 miles at 10km speed with 90 secs recovery

Day 3 Anaerobic – 8 x 400m at 1,500m speed with 60 secs rest

Day 4 Aerobic – 4 x 1 mile at 5km speed (target speed) with 60 secs rest

Day 5 Aerobic – 3 x 1,500m at 3km speed with 3 mins rest

Day 6 REST

Day 7 If no race: anaerobic – 8 x 200m at 800m speed with 60 secs rest

Day 8 Aerobic – run 10km very fast

Day 9 Aerobic – run half marathon fast

Day 10 Aerobic – 7 x 800m at 5km speed with 30 secs rest

Day 11 Aerobic – 4 x 1k at 3km speed with 2:30 rest

Day 12 Start the cycle again

The problem is, 99% of ordinary runners will quickly breakdown or burnout or fall apart or get injured doing this. For most people, you simply cannot train like this for more than a few weeks without drugs because your body cannot recover. With the aid of drugs you can make spectacular progress on this type of system, because the drugs will allow you to recover, adapt and improve from this system. There may be a also may be a few superhumans who can also use this program and improve, but I suspect they are relatively rare. There is a noted American high school program that uses this program for the 100 kids who come out for the team and every year 1 or 2 of the kids get sensational results in the mile and 2 mile but not in XC and most kids responds poorly to this type of training.

So yes, the use of drugs does distort training theory.

If you are going clean, most i.e. 99% of people are better off using a Lydiard type system. Possibly you could build a huge endurance base first via a Lydiard type system then switch to a Horwill 5 Pace System or Canova's system for 1 -2 months, but not all year as advocated by Horwill and Canova.

If you are going the drug route, a Lydiard type program will leave you grossly under trained and you must follow a Horwill 5 Pace System or one of its successor's to get the full benefit of the drugs.

Uhh...no.

Top marathoners have no where near 50 second 400m speed.

Most top 10,000m / 5000m runners don't have 50 second 400m speed. 50 low, sure, i.e., 51-52 seconds.

Sammy Wanjiru split 47.x in the 4x4 as a youth in Japan.

loblaw wrote:

Uhh...no.

Top marathoners have no where near 50 second 400m speed.

Most top 10,000m / 5000m runners don't have 50 second 400m speed. 50 low, sure, i.e., 51-52 seconds.

Sammy Wanjiru split 47.x in the 4x4 as a youth in Japan.

No he didn't